Quote
BILLPERKS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
BILLPERKS
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The fact that they didn't tour it tells you only that they'd just done one.

In those days, they toured every 3 years.

They also didn't tour Emotional Rescue, Black and Blue, Goat's Head Soup, or Sticky Fingers during that 1969 to 1982 touring cycle.

Nice b*tch-slap and I note you didn't use all capitals.

IT WOULD BE A BITCH SLAP IF YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKIN ABOUT.
"YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER...."AND ALL THAT.

DANG!

...AND SHE WEARS ARMY BOOTS TOO!! TWO PAIR!!!

What'll I tell my kids?

so i listened to it yesterday and today, overall it´s not great. i don´t like the temorary sounding songs like TMB or UOTN, also don´t like the sound, added 80s drums, synties etc. but there are some songs on it, they are not mthat bad at all. all the way down, feel on baby etc. it could have been worse, if it would have sounded more like dirty work it would be worse.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
BILLPERKS
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The fact that they didn't tour it tells you only that they'd just done one.

In those days, they toured every 3 years.

They also didn't tour Emotional Rescue, Black and Blue, Goat's Head Soup, or Sticky Fingers during that 1969 to 1982 touring cycle.

Actually not touring behind UC ended the every 3 year US Tour cycle, began in 1969, they used to follow. So bearing that in mind, 1984 should've been a touring year for the Stones. There were reports floating around about one, which included a brief in USA Today of them potentially playing the Olympic opening ceremonies in L.A.

In retrospect, despite my own positive feelings about UC, it's always seemed that the relative commercial failure of this album, made Jagger question the Stones viability enough to pursue an immediate solo career. After a string of #1 studio albums here in the U.S. stretching back over a decade, and on the heels of the mega-success of TTY, UC peaking at #4 would've been seen as a disappointment by the Stones camp. Especially when you consider how much $$$ they spent on the promotional videos.

Looking back, if UC would've become the monster #1 which the band, Jagger in particular I'd imagine, had expected it's hard to see them not touring behind it at the time. Instead Jagger entered the studio sans Stones and spent 1984 recording his debut solo album. I thought I read somewhere that the band, Keith especially of course, anticipated there being a 1984 U.S. tour, and were caught off-guard when Mick went the solo route instead that spring.

This is all conjecture of course but it's not too hard to imagine around this time that Jagger came to an agreement with Richards to tour behind their next album since the band was sitting out 1984. Of course, Richards enters the studio the next year to record an album to tour behind, but instead Jagger opts out yet again, and even before DW is released begins recording demos for his 2nd solo album. Which would help to explain Keith's outrage at the time about not touring DW, if true, he would've felt double crossed, lied to.

I think this is why the UC/DW albums, despite vastly different sounds/styles, are linked together so strongly. It could be argued that the Rolling Stones, as a truly functioning band ended with the European tour in 1982. After that it existed simply because of recording obligations and lucrative tours. I believe that's why Crossfire Hurricane ends when it does. It's Jagger's sly way of saying the band the Rolling Stones ended around that time which not coincidentally synched up to their 20th anniversary.

OF course just before UC came out the Stones jumped to CBS for what was ostensibly a new record deal, here is the report from RS at the time:

Stones ink $25 mil. deal w/ CBS


But what wasn't reported at the time was the side solo deal inked by Jagger. I've read where Walter Yetnikoff (CBS head at the time) thought Jagger could be as big as Michael Jackson as a solo artist. In many ways UC was the last studio album by the band the Rolling Stones-their swan song. It was also the contractual obligation album to close out their Atlantic deal. At this time Mick is turning 40, as is Keith, so all of these events and milestones factor into what was going on during the recording and production of UC.

When UC peaked at 4, it gave Yetnikoff more evidence that the Stones had seen their day, and Mick Jagger solo was the route to go. By most accounts it seems that UC wasn't the most pleasant recording experience either, further feeding Mick's disillusionment about the future of the band. But STB didn't even go top 10 and two years later PC tanked, leading to the rise of Rolling Stones Inc.

The period of 1983-1986 was a really transitional period for the Rolling Stones. As opposed to now, during that time they existed solely as a recording unit, no tours, no live public concerts of any kind. It was a strange time, reflected by the UC and DW albums. They were still a band, but at the same time, in a very real sense, not a band anymore. For better or worse, the beginnings of the Rolling Stones as we know them today were forged during this time. The body and brain still function, but it's a shell of its former self. I am referring to how the individual members, Jagger and Richards in particular-relate, work, communicate, and create. It's a business more than a band, and I believe that is how Jagger has approached it since the 1983-1986 era.

If he had his way, it would've ended around that time as well. But to his disappointment, which I'd think still bothers him, the public didn't much care for MICK JAGGER without "his" Rolling Stones.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-22 21:16 by big4.

Quote
big4

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
BILLPERKS
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The fact that they didn't tour it tells you only that they'd just done one.

In those days, they toured every 3 years.

They also didn't tour Emotional Rescue, Black and Blue, Goat's Head Soup, or Sticky Fingers during that 1969 to 1982 touring cycle.

Actually not touring behind UC ended the every 3 year US Tour cycle, began in 1969, they used to follow. So bearing that in mind, 1984 should've been a touring year for the Stones. There were reports floating around about one, which included a brief in USA Today of them potentially playing the Olympic opening ceremonies in L.A.

In retrospect, despite my own positive feelings about UC, it's always seemed that the relative commercial failure of this album, made Jagger question the Stones viability enough to pursue an immediate solo career. After a string of #1 studio albums here in the U.S. stretching back over a decade, and on the heels of the mega-success of TTY, UC peaking at #4 would've been seen as a disappointment by the Stones camp. Especially when you consider how much $$$ they spent on the promotional videos.

Looking back, if UC would've become the monster #1 which the band, Jagger in particular I'd imagine, had expected it's hard to see them not touring behind it at the time. Instead Jagger entered the studio sans Stones and spent 1984 recording his debut solo album. I thought I read somewhere that the band, Keith especially of course, anticipated there being a 1984 U.S. tour, and were caught off-guard when Mick went the solo route instead that spring.

This is all conjecture of course but it's not too hard to imagine around this time that Jagger came to an agreement with Richards to tour behind their next album since the band was sitting out 1984. Of course, Richards enters the studio the next year to record an album to tour behind, but instead Jagger opts out yet again, and even before DW is released begins recording demos for his 2nd solo album. Which would help to explain Keith's outrage at the time about not touring DW, he was essentially double crossed, lied to.

I think this is why the UC/DW albums, despite vastly different sounds/styles, are linked together so strongly. It could be argued that the Rolling Stones, as a truly functioning band ended with the European tour in 1982. After that it existed simply because of recording obligations and lucrative tours. I believe that's why Crossfire Hurricane ends when it does. It's Jagger's sly way of saying the band the Rolling Stones ended around that time which not coincidentally synched up to their 20th anniversary.

OF course just before UC came out the Stones jumped to CBS for what was ostensibly a new record deal, here is the report from RS at the time:



But what wasn't reported at the time was the side solo deal inked by Jagger. I've read where Walter Yetnikoff (CBS head at the time) thought Jagger could be as big as Michael Jackson as a solo artist. In many ways UC was the last studio album by the band the Rolling Stones-their swan song. It was also the contractual obligation album to close out their Atlantic deal. At this time Mick is turning 40, as is Keith, so all of these events and milestones factor into what was going on during the recording and production of UC.

When UC peaked at 4, it gave Yetnikoff more evidence that the Stones had seen their day, and Mick Jagger solo was the route to go. By most accounts it seems that UC wasn't the most pleasant recording experience either, further feeding Mick's disillusionment about the future of the band. But STB didn't even go top 10 and two years later PC tanked, leading to the rise of Rolling Stones Inc.

The period of 1983-1986 was a really transitional period for the Rolling Stones. As opposed to now, during that time they existed solely as a recording unit, no tours, no live public concerts of any kind. It was a strange time, reflected by the UC and DW albums. They were still a band, but at the same time, in a very real sense, not a band anymore. For better or worse, the beginnings of the Rolling Stones as know them today were forged during this time. The body and brain still function, but it's a shell of its former self. I am referring to how the individual members, Jagger and Richards in particular-relate, work, communicate, and create. It's a business more than a band, and I believe that is how Jagger has approached it since the 1983-1986 era.

If he had his way, it would've ended around that time as well. But to his disappointment, which I'd think still bothers him, the public didn't much care for MICK JAGGER without "his" Rolling Stones.

Nicely put.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm pretty sure Undercover was the album they used the most time, in terms of both the arrangement and the mixing, Edward. Working with new techonology takes time.

I can't hear any slapdash with the singles (Too Much Blood might be a little too long, though), She Was Hot, Feel On Baby, Tie You Up or All The Way Down here.

I can understand that people, who don't get the groove, may find Pretty Beat Up a bit one-dimensional - but then again, that's exactly what I like about it.

Too Tough, Wanna Hold You (which I like very much for its melodic drive, as well as its sharp sound) and It Must Be Hell might be a little generic, even though I like the choruses, the experimentation with drums - as well as the bridge in IMBH.

She Was Hot, Feel On Baby (have you ever heard a guitar sounding like this?) and Undercover Of The Night are masterfully arranged and mixed in my book.

Those songs are very shallow in the main though, Dandelion, because the Stones didn't spend enough time and dedication in working on them until their potential came fully to fruition (that's with regards to the songs where there was a significant degree of potential to begin with). That's not to say those songs have no redeeming qualities, because i can see how some of them are mildly infectious etc. (i feel like that about 'All The Way Down' a little), because there was a little of the Stones youthful vigour still remaining, in their performances, which could sort of carry them through. However, UNDERCOVER is really very much a Stones going through-the-motions exercise. I prefer it to anything from the STEEL WHEELS - A BIGGER BANG era, however, because the Stones were still vital enough to bluff their way through, but that's not really saying anything of merit, ultimately. Much of the stuff to be found on UNDERCOVER, the Stones could have written/recorded in their sleep. The modern technology used, was never really done so with any great level of conviction (aside perhaps from 'Undercover Of The Night'). UNDERCOVER, ultimately, with one or two notable exceptions, finds the Stones in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I'm pretty sure Undercover was the album they used the most time, in terms of both the arrangement and the mixing, Edward. Working with new techonology takes time.

I can't hear any slapdash with the singles (Too Much Blood might be a little too long, though), She Was Hot, Feel On Baby, Tie You Up or All The Way Down here.

I can understand that people, who don't get the groove, may find Pretty Beat Up a bit one-dimensional - but then again, that's exactly what I like about it.

Too Tough, Wanna Hold You (which I like very much for its melodic drive, as well as its sharp sound) and It Must Be Hell might be a little generic, even though I like the choruses, the experimentation with drums - as well as the bridge in IMBH.

She Was Hot, Feel On Baby (have you ever heard a guitar sounding like this?) and Undercover Of The Night are masterfully arranged and mixed in my book.

Those songs are very shallow in the main though, Dandelion, because the Stones didn't spend enough time and dedication in working on them until their potential came fully to fruition (that's with regards to the songs where there was a significant degree of potential to begin with). That's not to say those songs have no redeeming qualities, because i can see how some of them are mildly infectious etc. (i feel like that about 'All The Way Down' a little), because there was a little of the Stones youthful vigour still remaining, in their performances, which could sort of carry them through. However, UNDERCOVER is really very much a Stones going through-the-motions exercise. I prefer it to anything from the STEEL WHEELS - A BIGGER BANG era, however, because the Stones were still vital enough to bluff their way through, but that's not really saying anything of merit, ultimately. Much of the stuff to be found on UNDERCOVER, the Stones could have written/recorded in their sleep. The modern technology used, was never really done so with any great level of conviction (aside perhaps from 'Undercover Of The Night'). UNDERCOVER, ultimately, with one or two notable exceptions, finds the Stones in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It was, also, by far the longest they'd gone between full albums of newly recorded material, as there was about 3 1/2 between ER and UC releases. By that logic, they should've had a wealth of new material, and plenty of time to get the songs right. After the Stones wrapped up the ER sessions in Sept. of '79, aside from a brief visit in the fall of '80 to work on Neighbors and Heaven, the band hadn't recorded together for over three years when they entered the studio in the fall of '82. Their longest break from recording ever up to that time. Then instead of taking months to jam and work on the songs. They cut UC in only six weeks between of Nov-Dec. '82.

It seems that this was period that recording became secondary to the Stones. Between fall of 1979 and fall 1982 the band toured the U.S. and Europe, made a concert film, and released three albums-one studio, one odds and sods from the '70s outtakes and an obligatory live one. They tried to fire up a cold engine, which by their own admittance takes a while to get really get going, and quickly record an album. It could explain why the songs seem underdone and unfinished. They seemed to have done a little bit of recording in Jan. of '83 but that's it until June when they mixed and overdubbed the UC songs.

By usual Stones standards up this point, UC was a rushed album that consisted of only one six week period dedicated to the recording of it. It seems whatever happened during the ER sessions between Mick and Keith intensified during the UC sessions, and had deteriorated to the point that one six week period is all they could stand working with each other.

Thanks, big4, for giving us that info. I have always been under impression that UNDERCOVER was a rather rushed deal, and, as I rememeber claimed, a "contract filler". If anything, it has always sounded like a rushed deal compared its predecessors. So, in many ways it is more similar to the routines they were better known while making STEEL WHEELS than compared to the releases prior it. That is: after quite a long pause, the band was called together, Mick and Keith having written 'together' a bunch of songs rather quickly, and then they went to record rather them quickly etc. instead of seeing when the 'inspiration' comes, when the band is ready and hot for the 'right' take, when the songs are accomplished in the studio after a trial and error, no matter how long it takes, etc. I recall, for example, Ron Wood complaining some time ago that "All The Way Down" had a lot of potential they didn't have time to realize.

This said, I declare that the last 'real' Rolling Stones album is EMOTIONAL RESCUE. UNDERCOVER, DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS all belong to era of their own, when the Stones not any longer were a "living and breathing band", but a bunch of semi-retired and semi-interested folks gathering together to see if something could me milked out of the old engine that used to work so fine ages ago. The original and real Stones saga, as it was evolved and ever-changed from the early 60's, ended up in 1982 when the Stones European Tour ended. I salute for that!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-22 22:31 by Doxa.

I like Undercover alot, but I'd declare it the end of an era anyway just so you couldn't say a sad album like Emotional Rescue was the swan song.

I'd just like to point out that now, at this very point, there has been more collective effort and energy in this thread than the band had put forth in recording this album.

OK, carry on...

When we are past ten pages, we can start the comparison, not yet...

Quote
DandelionPowderman
When we are past ten pages, we can start the comparison, not yet...

It's not the quantity of the work, it's the quality.

I've looked back and seen some of the exchanges you and Doxa have had in this thread and it's brought a tear to my eye.

I'm welling up right now as I'm typing in fact, just at the memory of it!

We just started!!!

Quote
DandelionPowderman
We just started!!!

A "few" years ago...


- Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
When we are past ten pages, we can start the comparison, not yet...

It's not the quantity of the work, it's the quality.

I've looked back and seen some of the exchanges you and Doxa have had in this thread and it's brought a tear to my eye.

I'm welling up right now as I'm typing in fact, just at the memory of it!

Well, we, Dandie and I, call it "ancient art of bullshitting".... no solos or rhythmn parts separated, we shift roles by instinct, take freedoms and all, and knowing there is the other one, never too far, to rely on...

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

- Doxa

Quote
StonesCat
I like Undercover alot, but I'd declare it the end of an era anyway just so you couldn't say a sad album like Emotional Rescue was the swan song.

undercover is even worse.
Emotional Rescue at least had few good songs in there, undercover had none...

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
When we are past ten pages, we can start the comparison, not yet...

It's not the quantity of the work, it's the quality.

I've looked back and seen some of the exchanges you and Doxa have had in this thread and it's brought a tear to my eye.

I'm welling up right now as I'm typing in fact, just at the memory of it!

Undercover of the Thread--

We can keep the thread going another 6 weeks, then bump it back again next June for some "overdubbing"....

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
When we are past ten pages, we can start the comparison, not yet...

It's not the quantity of the work, it's the quality.

I've looked back and seen some of the exchanges you and Doxa have had in this thread and it's brought a tear to my eye.

I'm welling up right now as I'm typing in fact, just at the memory of it!

Well, we, Dandie and I, call it "ancient art of bullshitting".... no solos or rhythmn parts separated, we shift roles by instinct, take freedoms and all, and knowing there is the other one, never too far, to rely on...

- Doxa

Henceforth and this day forward, in recognition that your screen names start with a 'D', and because while you are both VERY bright shining stars, but perhaps slightly let bright than...that is to say, not quite as bright as Mick and Keith, you shall be known as:

THE DIMMER TWINS!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
When we are past ten pages, we can start the comparison, not yet...

It's not the quantity of the work, it's the quality.

I've looked back and seen some of the exchanges you and Doxa have had in this thread and it's brought a tear to my eye.

I'm welling up right now as I'm typing in fact, just at the memory of it!

Well, we, Dandie and I, call it "ancient art of bullshitting".... no solos or rhythmn parts separated, we shift roles by instinct, take freedoms and all, and knowing there is the other one, never too far, to rely on...

- Doxa

Henceforth and this day forward, in recognition that your screen names start with a 'D', and because while you are both VERY bright shining stars, but perhaps slightly let bright than...that is to say, not quite as bright as Mick and Keith, you shall be known as:

THE DIMMER TWINS!

Our posts aren't really that much enlightening, then, are they...

><

- Doxa

Quote
seitan

Quote
StonesCat
I like Undercover alot, but I'd declare it the end of an era anyway just so you couldn't say a sad album like Emotional Rescue was the swan song.

undercover is even worse.
Emotional Rescue at least had few good songs in there, undercover had none...

Go listen to Miley Cyrus since you can't spot a good song on UNDERCOVER then. Obviously you're hard of hearing.

Miley is much better to watch if the sound is turned down.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
When we are past ten pages, we can start the comparison, not yet...

It's not the quantity of the work, it's the quality.

I've looked back and seen some of the exchanges you and Doxa have had in this thread and it's brought a tear to my eye.

I'm welling up right now as I'm typing in fact, just at the memory of it!

Well, we, Dandie and I, call it "ancient art of bullshitting".... no solos or rhythmn parts separated, we shift roles by instinct, take freedoms and all, and knowing there is the other one, never too far, to rely on...

- Doxa

Henceforth and this day forward, in recognition that your screen names start with a 'D', and because while you are both VERY bright shining stars, but perhaps slightly let bright than...that is to say, not quite as bright as Mick and Keith, you shall be known as:

THE DIMMER TWINS!

Our posts aren't really that much enlightening, then, are they...

Oh, they are enlightening, but lets just say one doesn't have to squint.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
NICOS
Too Much Blood is the only highlight on this album

Seriously? I mean if you like Too Much Blood, how is it that you don't like Undercover of the Night, or Pretty Beat Up or Tie You Up?

I can get not liking the album, but to like that song and not the rest is perplexing to me.

You just listed your top stones albums above, and put Tattoo You and Undercover above albums like Sticky and Exile ... and you question where this guy is coming from??? (although I do have to agree with one thing, as Too Much Blood is the only bad song on this album).

You need to reread my post, that isn't at all what I said...

Actually its exactly what you said:

"You've got your big four, Tattoo You, Some Girls, Between The Buttons, Aftermath, Black and Blue, Undercover."

Although I guess if I didn't scan over it too quickly I would have seen that you listed more than 4 and possibly figured it out.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
NICOS
Too Much Blood is the only highlight on this album

Seriously? I mean if you like Too Much Blood, how is it that you don't like Undercover of the Night, or Pretty Beat Up or Tie You Up?

I can get not liking the album, but to like that song and not the rest is perplexing to me.

You just listed your top stones albums above, and put Tattoo You and Undercover above albums like Sticky and Exile ... and you question where this guy is coming from??? (although I do have to agree with one thing, as Too Much Blood is the only bad song on this album).

You need to reread my post, that isn't at all what I said...

Actually its exactly what you said:

"You've got your big four, Tattoo You, Some Girls, Between The Buttons, Aftermath, Black and Blue, Undercover."

Although I guess if I didn't scan over it too quickly I would have seen that you listed more than 4 and possibly figured it out.

This would have been correct had he use the : in front of the listed albums.

But he didn't...

It's obvious what he meant.

The big four - A career saving, musical redefining run of studio albums by The Rolling Stones that casts a benchmark shadow over all of their previous and following albums and showed that they could compete with and even better the Joneses even without a Jones in their midst.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-24 12:57 by His Majesty.

<casts a benchmark shadow over all of their previous and following albums>